pogi Posted November 21, 2019 Author Posted November 21, 2019 1 hour ago, provoman said: Utah law the female areola or female nipple ARE inherently lewd. CFR that it says any part of the body is "inherently lewd".
california boy Posted November 21, 2019 Posted November 21, 2019 (edited) 34 minutes ago, Ahab said: Yes. Did you ever see the video version shown in the temple? Hide! He said. As if they should feel ashamed. There is nothing wrong with feeling like you are immodestly dressed, accompanied by a feeling of wanting to put some clothes on so you can be modestly dressed. We should clothe ourselves not because we are ashamed of our bodies but because we want to be modestly dressed and not let it all hang out in front of everybody. Yes. Just like a small child, they didn't know any better. Only if we're doing it because we feel ashamed of our bodies. Our Father just wants us to be modest and not let everything hang out in front of everybody. So if we are not ashamed of our bodies, then it is ok to hang out naked? And wasn't it Satan that wanted us to be modest? God didn't seem to have a problem with it. Adam and Eve weren't children. Is it ok for adults that are child like to be naked? Edited November 21, 2019 by california boy
Ahab Posted November 21, 2019 Posted November 21, 2019 11 minutes ago, california boy said: So if we are not ashamed of our bodies, then it is ok to hang out naked? No, that would be immodest. 11 minutes ago, california boy said: And wasn't it Satan that wanted us to be modest? No, he wants us to feel like we should be ashamed of being naked. We should dress not because we feel ashamed, which we shouldn't. We should dress because we want to be modest. 11 minutes ago, california boy said: God didn't seem to have a problem with it. Adam and Eve weren't children. They didn't know any better, though. And if you see any adults walking around naked in public, it may be because they don't know any better, either. There is better, though. It is better to be modestly dressed rather than naked, being naked only when necessary like when bathing or having sexual relations, righteously. 11 minutes ago, california boy said: Is it ok for adults that are child like to be naked? It is not okay but since they don't know any better it is what would probably be classified as "ignorantly sinning". They don't realize it is bad and they aren't doing it to be rebels against what is good. They just don't know they shouldn't be naked, when they should not be.
provoman Posted November 21, 2019 Posted November 21, 2019 23 minutes ago, pogi said: CFR that it says any part of the body is "inherently lewd". Utah 76-9-702 A person is guilty of lewdness if the person....exposes..., the female breast below the top of the areola. 1
provoman Posted November 21, 2019 Posted November 21, 2019 (edited) 40 minutes ago, pogi said: Diminishing the validity of a parent? What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with the validity of in-law-parenthood. This has to do with young children being intentionally exposed to breasts in violation of Utah law to prove how feminist she is - in that context I think the fact that she is not the biological mother does make a difference in how it might affect the children psychologically. you and others keep pointing out she is not the biological mother. The law makes no distinction between breast of biological mother and any other female breast. Edited November 21, 2019 by provoman
pogi Posted November 21, 2019 Author Posted November 21, 2019 4 minutes ago, provoman said: Utah 76-9-702 A person is guilty of lewdness if the person....exposes..., the female breast below the top of the areola. ...intentionally...knowing they will "likely cause affront or alarm".... No where does it say the nipple is "inherently lewd" nor does it insinuate that. I think you should retract your statement as the CFR was not answered. 1
pogi Posted November 21, 2019 Author Posted November 21, 2019 3 minutes ago, provoman said: you and other keep pointing out she is not the biological mother. The law makes no distinction between breast of biological mother and any other female breast. the level of "affront or alarm" absolutely is affected by the mother being biological or not. 1
bluebell Posted November 21, 2019 Posted November 21, 2019 2 hours ago, california boy said: That is an interesting thought. It appears that God preferred Adam and Eve naked. But if they are going to follow Satan’s plan, at least give them something more fashion forward than a fig leaf. I wonder what PETA thinks about God’s gift of animal skins. Are they on the wrong side. of Gods plan? It wasn't following satan's plan that made the difference though, it was the level of knowledge. God only preferred them naked when they were innocent and didn't know they were. Once they had enough knowledge to understand, He preferred them clothed. 1
Meadowchik Posted November 21, 2019 Posted November 21, 2019 (edited) It is a poor comparison to genitals, etc... which are not just sexual in nature but also sharing proximity to bodily waste which is a public health concern separate from visual social norms. Edited November 21, 2019 by Meadowchik
provoman Posted November 21, 2019 Posted November 21, 2019 30 minutes ago, pogi said: ...intentionally...knowing they will "likely cause affront or alarm".... No where does it say the nipple is "inherently lewd" nor does it insinuate that. I think you should retract your statement as the CFR was not answered. 76-9-702 a person is guilty of lewdness...if the person...performs any of the following IN A PUBLIC PLACE ....exposes the female breast below the top of the areola. Exposure of the female breast below the top of the areola in a public place is lewdness. The "affront or alarm" is an OR statement to "in a public place"; so "in a public place or under circumstances likely to cause affront or alarm" 2
pogi Posted November 21, 2019 Author Posted November 21, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, provoman said: 76-9-702 a person is guilty of lewdness...if the person...performs any of the following IN A PUBLIC PLACE ....exposes the female breast below the top of the areola. Exposure of the female breast below the top of the areola in a public place is lewdness. The "affront or alarm" is an OR statement to "in a public place"; so "in a public place or under circumstances likely to cause affront or alarm" Again, it doesn't state or suggest that any body part is "inherently lewd". It clearly states that lewdness is an act, and not a body part (that would be madness to consider). It is explicit that lewdness is "performing" a certain "intentional" act in a certain context. If any part of the human body was "inherently lewd", it would be an inherent act of lewdness to expose it anywhere, anytime, anyplace, to anyone. There are situations where it is not considered lewd by law and culture to expose it, in private and even in public. So again, lewdness is about certain acts in certain contexts that violate cultural sensibilities. The "OR" statement is regarding a private place (the context of this case). Again, I ask you to retract your comment as the CFR you provided does not state (as you suggested it did) that any body part is "inherently" lewd. Edited November 21, 2019 by pogi 1
Ahab Posted November 21, 2019 Posted November 21, 2019 I think the worst part of this is that if this woman is convicted of the "crime" charged against her, she will be registered as a sex offender and the stigma associated with that will likely follow her for the rest of her life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender It is argued that in the U.S., sex offenders have been selected as the new realization of moral panics about sex, stranger danger, and national paranoia, the new folk devils or boogeymen. People convicted of any sex crime are "transformed into a concept of evil, which is then personified as a group of faceless, terrifying, and predatory devils", who are, contrary to scientific evidence, perceived as a constant threat, habitually waiting for an opportunity to attack.[27] Consequently, sex offenders are brought up by media on Halloween, despite the fact that there has never been a recorded case of abduction or abuse by a registered sex offender on Halloween.[27] Academics, treatment professionals,[15][28] and law reform groups such as National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws[29] and Women Against Registry[30] criticize current sex offender laws as based on media-driven moral panic and "public emotion", rather than a real attempt to protect society.[27][31][32][33][34][35] This can motivate legislators to pass knee-jerk laws[36] to address public hysteria, echoing a "populist punitiveness" perspective.[37] Many lawmakers feel that they will attract votes by appearing to be "tough on sex offenders".[38] One discrepancy pointed out by critics is that John Walsh, father of Adam Walsh and supporter of the Adam Walsh Act, has admitted having a relationship with a 16-year-old girl while being in his early 20s and aware of age of consent being 17 in New York,[39] meaning that, had he been convicted, John Walsh himself could be required to register as a sex offender. Since passage of the Adam Walsh Act, Walsh himself has criticized the law, stating "You can't paint sex offenders with a broad brush."[40] Critics point out that contrary to media depictions, abductions by predatory offenders are very rare[41] and 93% of child sexual abuse is committed by someone the child knows: a family member, a family friend, someone in a position of authority.[42] According to the U.S. Department of Justice, sex offender recidivism is 5.3%,[43] the lowest for any type of crime except homicide.[44] Critics say that, while originally aimed at the worst offenders, as a result of moral panic the laws have gone through series of amendments, many named after the victim of a highly publicized predatory offense, expanding the scope of the laws to low-level offenders, and treating them the same as predatory offenders, leading to the disproportionate punishment of being placed on a public sex offender registry, with the consequent restrictions on movement, employment, and housing.[30][41] As a result of the media narrative of sex offenders, highlighting egregious offenses as typical behavior of sex offenders, and distorting the facts of cases,[45] the panic has been said to have increased, leading legislators to attack judicial discretion,[45] by making registration mandatory based strictly on offense of conviction, without considering the likelihood to re-offend or the actual severity of the crime, thus punishing less serious offenders under the harsh sex offender laws.
pogi Posted November 21, 2019 Author Posted November 21, 2019 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Ahab said: I think the worst part of this is that if this woman is convicted of the "crime" charged against her, she will be registered as a sex offender and the stigma associated with that will likely follow her for the rest of her life. And if she is not convicted, then it will be because the judge found the law unconstitutional (as is the defenses argument) and we very well may see topless women strolling the streets of SLC in the not-so-distant-future. It seems you have more a problem with the sex-registry and how certain sex-offender laws are handled then you do with anything else. I have a problem with it too. But that is a totally different topic for a totally different thread. Edited November 21, 2019 by pogi
Ahab Posted November 21, 2019 Posted November 21, 2019 (edited) 12 minutes ago, pogi said: And if she is not convicted, then it will be because the judge found the law unconstitutional (as is the defenses argument) and we very well may see topless women strolling the streets of SLC in the not-so-distant-future. There is no need to jump to ridiculous conclusions. This is a woman who was topless in her own home. No good reason to think she would walk around topless in public. Quote It seems you have more a problem with the sex-registry and how certain sex-offender laws are handled then you do with anything else. I have a problem with it too. But that is a totally different topic for a totally different thread. Another jump to another ridiculous conclusion. Please just stop doing that. Edited November 21, 2019 by Ahab
pogi Posted November 21, 2019 Author Posted November 21, 2019 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Ahab said: There is no need to jump to ridiculous conclusions. This is a woman who was topless in her own home. No good reason to think she would walk around topless in public. She is a feminist who went to the extreme of exposing her breasts to 3 young step-children to teach them that it is ok for women to expose their breasts in private or public, just like men...and she is now in the legal arena making her case that it is unconstitutional to make her keep her top on in private or public - So, who is coming to ridiculous conclusions? If she wins, it is not just her I am worried about walking around the streets topless. 27 minutes ago, Ahab said: Another jump to another ridiculous conclusion. Please just stop doing that. Do you think that Utah law should allow women to expose their breasts to children and others in public or private? Because that is what this case is really about, in case you missed it. Edited November 21, 2019 by pogi 1
bluebell Posted November 21, 2019 Posted November 21, 2019 10 minutes ago, pogi said: Do you think that Utah law should allow women to expose their breasts to children and others in public or private? Because that is what this case is really about, in case you missed it. Honestly, I was feeling pretty negatively towards that idea until this thread but now, while I'm not hoping it happens, I don't think it would be that big of a deal. It seems odd to me to talk about a child being "exposed" to breasts as if it exposure to a body part, in and of itself, can be harmful (and it sounds too similar to being exposed to some disease for my taste). I'm tired of women's body parts being treated as if the mere sight of them is dangerous. 4
Popular Post katherine the great Posted November 21, 2019 Popular Post Posted November 21, 2019 26 minutes ago, pogi said: Do you think that Utah law should allow women to expose their breasts to children and others in public or private? Maybe. Maybe it would be good for our society to observe a little non sexual nudity in everyday life. Maybe Utah could run a pilot program. 5
Ahab Posted November 21, 2019 Posted November 21, 2019 (edited) 43 minutes ago, pogi said: She is a feminist who went to the extreme of exposing her breasts to 3 young step-children to teach them that it is ok for women to expose their breasts in private or public, just like men...and she is now in the legal arena making her case that it is unconstitutional to make her keep her top on in private or public - So, who is coming to ridiculous conclusions? If she wins, it is not just her I am worried about walking around the streets topless. Do you think that Utah law should allow women to expose their breasts to children and others in public or private? Because that is what this case is really about, in case you missed it. In private, in a person's own home, I don't think any secular government has any right to make some rule or law about what men or women should wear or not wear. Conduct is another matter, so if this woman had been having sexual relations with her children, or was trying to make that happen, then I would see how it would be okay for civil authority representatives to step in and either try to prevent it or somehow punish her for doing that. In public, people should dress modestly rather than walking around naked, either topless or bottomless or both. Dressing modestly is the opposite of wearing skimpy clothing or no clothing at all. Secular government authority figures are not at the same time religious authority figures and should only be concerned with public health and safety when in the performance of their duties, rather than imposing religious guidelines people should choose for themselves. Edited November 21, 2019 by Ahab
Ahab Posted November 21, 2019 Posted November 21, 2019 18 minutes ago, katherine the great said: Maybe. Maybe it would be good for our society to observe a little non sexual nudity in everyday life. Maybe Utah could run a pilot program. That would not be modest and I think I would feel it to be my Christian duty to try to clothe the naked.
pogi Posted November 21, 2019 Author Posted November 21, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, bluebell said: Honestly, I was feeling pretty negatively towards that idea until this thread but now, while I'm not hoping it happens, I don't think it would be that big of a deal. It seems odd to me to talk about a child being "exposed" to breasts as if it exposure to a body part, in and of itself, can be harmful (and it sounds too similar to being exposed to some disease for my taste). I'm tired of women's body parts being treated as if the mere sight of them is dangerous. Once again, this is not about the body part being inherently _____(fill in the blank) as if it should be compared to a disease...or that they are dangerous... In a different time, place, culture, etc. sure, I see what you are saying. In a different context I would not be affected at all by women/men walking around bare naked, but as I have already explained - given this culture of modesty, and the opposite objectification of women by the media/advertising/porn culture using the female breast as a sex symbol and to make a buck, religious teachings, etc. - our brains have been wired to perceive the female breast a certain way. Repeated exposure to them wont change that. Media will simply become more bold in their exploitation of the female breast, as we see in Europe. Cultural perceptions of the female breast are so deeply ingrained that to pretend like these cultural perspectives and attitudes don't exist would be unwise and entirely insensitive to the local culture. I agree there is nothing inherently wrong or damaging about walking around totally nude. However, in this time, place and culture - yes, there is something VERY wrong with it! If you want people to have different perceptions of the body - start with the culture (good luck with that!)...the law will follow. 1 hour ago, bluebell said: I'm tired of women's body parts being treated as if the mere sight of them is dangerous. Given our culture, it can be dangerous...unfortunately. Just like a male exposing his penis in public might be damaging to little girls - given our culture in Utah. This is about cultural perceptions of decency - violations of those perceptions can be damaging to those in that culture. Otherwise, if culture really doesn't matter, why stop at the female breasts? Why not free it all, including genitals? Public displays of sex, etc.? Would you be cool with men walking around with their penis's hanging out? There is nothing inherently wrong with any of this - it is all cultural. We should respect our local cultures and the sensibilities of the people and children in it and not force our extreme views (relatively speaking) upon any people by law - that is oppressive. That is all I am saying. Culture should dictate law, not the other way around. Edited November 21, 2019 by pogi 1
katherine the great Posted November 21, 2019 Posted November 21, 2019 1 hour ago, Ahab said: That would not be modest and I think I would feel it to be my Christian duty to try to clothe the naked. Hmm. Might be a good strategy for someone to get a new sweater!
pogi Posted November 21, 2019 Author Posted November 21, 2019 1 hour ago, katherine the great said: Maybe. Maybe it would be good for our society to observe a little non sexual nudity in everyday life. Maybe Utah could run a pilot program. There are pilot programs in other parts of the world. It isn't working in Europe. The female breast is still being exploited in sexual, but more bold ways. Perceptions aren't really changing over there.
Ahab Posted November 21, 2019 Posted November 21, 2019 3 minutes ago, katherine the great said: Hmm. Might be a good strategy for someone to get a new sweater! I will admit I would enjoy going shopping with and for a naked person, preferably a very attractive naked woman.
pogi Posted November 21, 2019 Author Posted November 21, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ahab said: In private, in a person's own home, I don't think any secular government has any right to make some rule or law about what men or women should wear or not wear. Conduct is another matter, so if this woman had been having sexual relations with her children, or was trying to make that happen, then I would see how it would be okay for civil authority representatives to step in and either try to prevent it or somehow punish her for doing that. In public, people should dress modestly rather than walking around naked, either topless or bottomless or both. Dressing modestly is the opposite of wearing skimpy clothing or no clothing at all. If she wins, it doesn't matter what you (or our local culture and people in general) think or don't think of what is right or wrong, because the law will be found unconstitutional opening the door for women to walk around topless. Edited November 21, 2019 by pogi
Ahab Posted November 21, 2019 Posted November 21, 2019 4 minutes ago, pogi said: If she wins, it doesn't matter what you (or our local culture and people in general) think or don't think of what is right or wrong, because the law will be found unconstitutional opening the door for women to walk around topless. I'd be fine if that was the law for her home. People shouldn't tell other people what to wear or not wear in their own home. In public, though, I would have something more to say about that.
Recommended Posts